markomalley

As a matter of a fact, I stayed up as many times, changed (almost) as many diapers, cleaned up as much puke, etc., as my wife (of course, she wouldn't agree, but that's another story altogether). So I'm not speaking from the husband who did nothing, Rascal. Same thing with midnight runs for Pedialyte, extra diapers, prescriptions, urgent care, etc. Been there, done that. And I am NOT advocating intentionally exposing a kid to a known threat. But I am also not advocating being over-protective. On the other hand, I actually know parents of large families who had their kids all sleep in the same room when one of them brought home something just so that they'd all get it at once and get it over with. No kidding! They'd have a miserable week. But, I guess that would beat a miserable seven weeks. I'm not telling you how to raise your kids, Rascal, I'm just trying to bring in some information from a different perspective. And it worked. Oh, by the way, we got that advice from a friend of my wife, who was a pediatrician and mother of four.

Kids get sick. Kids in contact with other kids get sick faster. That's part of life. Only way to prevent it is to prevent exposure of the kids to germs. This is done in one way: minimize exposure... Guess what? That's how kids' immunity systems are built up. Kids get sick: kids build up antibodies. Kids are less vulnerable in the future. Voice of experience speaking here, btw. You do your kid a misservice if the kid doesn't build up normal antibodies when he's young. Mumps is a pain in the butt when the kid is young. Mumps as an adult is downright dangerous. Same thing with other childhood diseases, like Rubella and Chicken Pox. I may sound like a give-a-sh1t parent, but now that my kid is in middle school, she just doesn't get sick anymore...even if something is "going around." This is not an advocacy to totally expose a kid to everything, I'm not. However, totally shielding a child does the child a disservice. Just something to consider.

Garth, how about a with Hmmm, that sounds good!

Reading a Psalm or two would likely be appropriate. A couple that might work may be: Psalm 62 My soul rests in God alone, from whom comes my salvation. God alone is my rock and salvation, my secure height; I shall never fall. How long will you set upon people, all of you beating them down, As though they were a sagging fence or a battered wall? Even from my place on high they plot to dislodge me. They delight in lies; they bless with their mouths, but inwardly they curse. Selah My soul, be at rest in God alone, from whom comes my hope. God alone is my rock and my salvation, my secure height; I shall not fall. My safety and glory are with God, my strong rock and refuge. Trust God at all times, my people! Pour out your hearts to God our refuge! Selah Mortals are a mere breath, the powerful but an illusion; On a balance they rise; together they are lighter than air. Do not trust in extortion; in plunder put no empty hope. Though wealth increase, do not set your heart upon it. One thing God has said; two things I have heard: Power belongs to God; so too, Lord, does kindness, And you render to each of us according to our deeds. Psalm 103 Bless the LORD, my soul; all my being, bless his holy name! Bless the LORD, my soul; do not forget all the gifts of God, Who pardons all your sins, heals all your ills, Delivers your life from the pit, surrounds you with love and compassion, Fills your days with good things; your youth is renewed like the eagle's. The LORD does righteous deeds, brings justice to all the oppressed. His ways were revealed to Moses, mighty deeds to the people of Israel. Merciful and gracious is the LORD, slow to anger, abounding in kindness. God does not always rebuke, nurses no lasting anger, Has not dealt with us as our sins merit, nor requited us as our deeds deserve. As the heavens tower over the earth, so God's love towers over the faithful. As far as the east is from the west, so far have our sins been removed from us. As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on the faithful. For he knows how we are formed, remembers that we are dust. Our days are like the grass; like flowers of the field we blossom. The wind sweeps over us and we are gone; our place knows us no more. But the LORD'S kindness is forever, toward the faithful from age to age. He favors the children's children of those who keep his covenant, who take care to fulfill its precepts. The LORD'S throne is established in heaven; God's royal power rules over all. Bless the LORD, all you angels, mighty in strength and attentive, obedient to every command. Bless the LORD, all you hosts, ministers who do God's will. Bless the LORD, all creatures, everywhere in God's domain. Bless the LORD, my soul! I believe either of those two have some very apt advice.

When he repeats arguments multiple times in an effort to prove a point that has been discounted, he has shown himself to be punch drunk. A gentlemen does not need to rub salt in the wounds. His argument has been totally disproven. He has utterly lost. Why be ugly?

WTH, KJV: malefactors is an adjective KJV: theives is a noun The two don't compare. As I said before, it's like comparing red to apple. However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that you are simply trying to quote your own "theologian" (actually a homilest) as your ultimate authority and haven't taken on any of the arguments raised by anybody here. Since I do not accept the authority of the person you cite as your authority (I have shown multiple errors of his in this thread alone, therefore, I have reason to question his qualifications) and you apparently are not willing to engage based upon strictly examining the scriptures, then it appears we don't have much else to discuss here. However, I do wish to thank you for the civility of your tone and the time you have spent. I also do appreciate the opportunity to show many other folks that this basic PFAL teaching was in error! Have a nice evening!

My bad! Apologies to both Cynic and you! Trouble is folks strain at gnats when it's logically obvious without even getting in to all the nuances!

Wordwolf, You ought to look into a lot of the stuff regarding the "Word-Faith" movement in general. Some of the practices, some of the personalities, some of the abuses. It wasn't just VPW. The similarities are bizarre. Haven't seen another one that went as far or as strange as VPW, but the characteristics of the abuses are spookily similar.

Give that man a kewpie doll!!!

Raf, it appears that the listserv posts that Wordwolf hyperlinked earlier bear some far greater examination. Thanks for that. I can tell I have some work to do...

Mo, You make my point beautifully. Better than I ever could have. And...on one level...I agree with you (the analogy I like using is one of four different painters capturing the same scene) But, to re-iterate something that I said earlier to WTH, Fact of the matter is that each of the authors described what he saw or what he was told. There is a perfectly valid rationale for each writer writing about different details of an incident; however, it is simply unreasonable to assume that one author would write about two people crucified with Christ and another to write about two others crucified, while not mentioning the first two. It might be reasonable for one to write about two crucified and one to write another account describing a scene with with 200 that are described (one is doing a micro look and the other is doing a macro account). I could buy that. But this description: R M C M R based upon accounts of R _ C _ R R _ C _ R _ M C M _ R M C _ _ is simply ridiculous...utterly silly. Why would two authors describe two people crucified with Jesus and not describe two that were hung closer to him? It violates common sense to say this. No author would do so; certainly two separate authors wouldn't both do it -- there is no rationale that could possibly explain why that would be the case. That's my issue with what you're saying...

djs, I am sincerely glad to hear your news about the changes you've observed. As you can tell from the caption under my avatar, I personally am just not interested in that any more. I am, in fact, sort of leaning to the side of the argument advanced by a number of other ex-TWI people, such as Catcup, Rascal, et al. You want to see if there have been the fundamental changes that you are bragging have happened? Try a little experiment. Go over to the "doctrinal" forum. Starting with the second half of page 3 of a thread called "misquoting jesus," a discussion develops in regard to the 4 crucified with Christ teaching advanced by TWI. The bulk of the remaining posts on that thread are dealing with that subject. Print it out, take it to your twig coordinator (they call them HFC's now, right?), and ask for some assistance in refuting the arguments made in that thread against the four crucified with Christ teaching. Look at his/her reaction carefully. If he/she actually sits down with you, goes through the Bible, gets out the interlinear, the lexicons, the concordances, and actually starts to 'work the word' with you, you may be onto something. If you are sharply reproved...then I'd think about it. If you so-called 'work the word' by pulling out collateral materials and don't actually go back to the Bible...then I'd think about it. But if you'd really like to see if there is a legitimate change from the root, that would be a fairly low-risk way to do so. Of course, if you're not willing to do so, then that, in of itself, is something to examine, as well. Best to you!

Mo, That is the absolutely most logical explanation I have ever heard to attempt the justification of 4 crucified with Christ. It doesn't square with scripture. (All scripture is RSV) Matt 27:38 Then two robbers were crucified with him, one on the right and one on the left. Mark 15:27 And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left. Luke 23:33 And when they came to the place which is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on the right and one on the left. John 19:18 There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them. (Oh, btw, in an effort to pre-empt a piffle apologist or three, I am noting the following: There is an expression enteuthen kai enteuthen used that I seem to recall from somewhere. It is rendered in the KJV "on either side one", you can see "one on either side" above in the RSV, also in the NASB, NKJV, Young's says "on this side, and on that side," Darby's says "[one] on this side, and [one] on that" The Greek word enteuthen means "hence" or "from this place". The Greek word "kai" means "and." So it appears that the Young or the Darby translations look like they are about the best ones here.) Each account has Jesus crucified with two, one on each side. Granted, the words aren't literally identical, but the meaning is pretty clearly the same. Now, Mo: The description you provided is: M M -- initially then: M M J R R as the layout The account in Matthew and Mark say: R J R The account in Luke says: M J M The account in John says: O J O When you keep in mind the back-and-forth that WTH and I have had, it's pretty clear that robber and malefactor could easily be the same person. No reason why they couldn't. And "other" is about as generic as it can get! But as I said, based upon historic reality, you are absolutely right that there could be many others crucified on that site on that day. But as far as specific people, I still only see two of them!

For $5,000 (the cost of that surgery), I can go out and get a nice 42 inch LCD TV along with a kick-butt Bose 5 channel surround sound system. Clearer?

I thought I'd heard it all, but there's always something new: Like a virgin? Thanks to 'revirgination' Vaginal reconstruction sees new-found popularity among women in the US Wednesday • January 11, 2006 WASHINGTON — Forget Botox, liposuction or breast enlargement. The newest trend in plastic surgery for women in the United States is vaginal reconstruction, including hymenoplasty, which offers patients new virginity. The procedure has become so popular that it has topped the other more conventional surgeries such as face-lifts and breast enlargement. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons says that vaginal surgery is one of the fastest growing trends in plastic surgery. In fact, as many as 30,000 women are said to opt for vaginal reconstruction yearly. The procedure, also known as "revirgination", is being hawked in magazines, the Internet or on radio stations as a way for women to improve their sex life or enjoy a second honeymoon. Ms Jeanette Yarborough, a medical assistant from San Antonio, Texas, said she decided to undergo hymenoplasty, which involves reattaching the hymen, as a special gift for her husband. "I wasn't a virgin when we got married and I thought: What better gift to give my husband than revirgination?" the 40-year-old mother of four told AFP. "It was a real sentimental gift, it was something I could recreate for him and he was thrilled. He was like, 'Yeah, it was worth every penny'," she said. Though long popular among women in the Middle East and Latin America, where being chaste is important on one's wedding night, hymenoplasty is experiencing new-found popularity among women in the US. One clinic boasts on its Internet site that its practitioners "can repair the hymen as if nothing occurred". Many who undergo the procedure, which costs between US$1,800 ($2,900) and US$5,000, also ask that their vaginas be tightened, doctors say. (remainder clipped. For remainder of article, see here) Just speaking for myself, I'd prefer a nice home theater...

The root word: Kakos, however, is a noun. Kakorgos is translated as malefactor 3 times and evil-doer once. In Luke 23:32, 33 and 39 it is translated as malefactor, where as in 2 Timothy 2:9 it is translated: evil doer. There is another word similar to Kakorgos: "Kakopoios" and it too is translated as malefactor and evil doer, however it is translated as evil doer far more often than Kakourgos. It is translated 4 times as evil doer and as malefactor only once. In John 18:30 Kakopoios is malefactor, but it appears as "evil doer" in 1 Peter 2:12, 14, 3:16, and 4:15. So which of these two words - Kakorgous or Kakopoios, are you going to insist upon being the noun and which one the adjective? This is getting to the point of being silly. First of all, we are not speaking of the word kakos. We are not speaking of the word kakopoios. We are speaking of kakorgous. Secondly, kakos is an adjective. Kakopoios is an adjective. Kakourgos is an adjective. There is a form of linguistic shorthand where an adjective can imply a noun. It is used in several languages with which I am familiar. For example: the word "stupid" is an adjective. "Stupid" describes a noun. "Stupid" is not a noun. The statement: "He is stupid" is an example of this shorthand. "Stupid" doesn't become a noun in this usage, it implies a noun following it. (An Elipsis) "He is stupid" implies the noun "man" or "boy" or "idiot" or some other noun that the reader must infer from the text. But it is still an adjective. The usages of the above words (kakos, etc.), are used much in the same way. In the case of kakourgos, it would be better rendered "one who does evil". The bible does not say what the malefactors did to be crucified. That's backwards. Malefactor is what they did wrong. They did not say who they were, just the description. (implying 'men' or some other noun to be the fill in the blank object noun) Nor is it comparing the malefactors to the robbers but rather differentiating between them by use of the word heteros - it's not comparing them. No, you are wrong again here. Please try to remember. Please. Please. Please. The word robber is never used in this scene. You can't compare something where the other object of comparison is not mentioned. As said earlier, every robber is a malefactor or evil-doer, but not every malefactor (evil doer) is a robber. In of itself, that is a true statement...however, it is also an irrelevant statement, since 'robbers' are not mentioned in the Luke account. Only unnamed people described as kakourgos. By the use of word heteros, the malefactors that were led out with Jesus were not robbers themselves, but they certainly did do something (other than robbery) that deserved death by crucifixtion. How about trying the easy explanation: maybe they were being qualitatively differentiated from Jesus. That is how it is used in the text. That is what the word heteros establishes. Heteros is not there in Luke 23:32 to compare the malefactors to Jesus Christ, Not to compare the malefactors to Jesus, but to point of the difference. nor is it there to indicate Jesus was a different evil doer or a different malefactor than the two led out with him! It does point out he was different, qualitatively, than the others...yup, it sure does... The only reason heteros is used is to show the difference between the two led out with Jesus and the "other" two that were brought and crucified later on. Then why were these other two whom you are referring not mentioned in Luke? Luke was its own account! But when heteros is combined with allos in regards to the crucifixtion, the Word of God then reveals the order in which the legs of the "others" were broken. I thought we were talking about Luke here. Which account do you wish to describe? Luke didn't mention the leg breaking, now did it? That is really all these two different Greek words heteros and allos do regarding the crucifixtion of Jesus. It only establishes that the malefactors were "off another kind" - that they were different than the robbers who were brought and crucified later. Both the robbers railed on Jesus but not the malefactors - only one of the malefactors railed on him. But when both useages - heteros and allos are combined in the record of the crucifixtion, the Word of God also establishes the order in which the legs of the robbers and the malefactors were broken. Even without the contribution of these two different Greek words for "other" [heteros and allos] the Word of God is crystal clear a total of 4 were ultimately crucified along with Jesus Christ. Anyone who cares enough can see it themselves. All one simply needs to do is pay careful attention to the time frame during the crucifixion. They will also see that both robbers were brought later on, and both robbers (not one robber) railed on Jesus. The heteros/allos observation is mainly there as: "icing on the cake". But some people have a difficult and hard enough time handling just the cake part, let alone saying nothing of the 'icing'. There ... are ... FOUR ... lights!!! - (Actually that would be crosses - not lights, Captain Picard!) And the rest of this is simply not worth parsing, because it is either repetitive or is a non-sequitor and so isn't worth breaking apart. Perhaps WW or another poster has patience to do this, but I don't anymore. Fact of the matter is that each of the authors described what he saw or what he was told. There is a perfectly valid rationale for each writer writing about different details of an incident; however, it is simply unreasonable to assume that one author would write about two people crucified with Christ and another to write about two others crucified, while not mentioning the first two. It might be reasonable for one to write about two crucified and one to write another account describing a scene with with 200 that are described (one is doing a micro look and the other is doing a macro account). I could buy that. But this description: R M C M R based upon accounts of R _ C _ R R _ C _ R _ M C M _ R M C _ _ is simply ridiculous...utterly silly. Why would two authors describe two people crucified with Jesus and not describe two that were hung closer to him? It violates common sense to say this. No author would do so; certainly two separate authors wouldn't both do it -- there is no rationale that could possibly explain why that would be the case. In addition, there is no evidence in the Bible to justify this. Not clear evidence. Not even subtle evidence. It just doesn't exist. Period. Enough.

self-delete

More news of a very healthy society: Body on I-95 halts traffic for hours Police say it was hit by motorists in dark By Melissa Harris Sun Reporter Originally published January 10, 2006 All northbound lanes of Interstate 95 in Howard County were shut down for more than seven hours yesterday, diverting thousands of motorists, as authorities dealt with the gruesome aftermath of a body that was struck by several passing vehicles, none of which stopped in the pre-dawn darkness. The remains were so badly mangled that police could not immediately discern the body's race or gender or determine a cause of death. It is not known whether the person was a pedestrian hit and killed on the road, was pushed from a vehicle or was killed first and dumped on the road. No unattended vehicle was found at the scene, apparently ruling out a motorist with car trouble being struck. "We're treating this as a homicide investigation until we know why the person was where they were," said Maryland State Police 1st Sgt. Russell Newell. The body was found on the interstate - a major north-south corridor that carries 200,000 motorists on a typical workday - between Routes 175 and 100 in Elkridge. Police closed the northbound lanes of the highway shortly before 5 a.m., and more than 40 cadets from the Maryland State Police training academy were brought in to retrieve human remains, which were spread across a quarter-mile stretch of the road. Newell described the scene as "gruesome." "They did find various body parts," he said. Southbound lanes were not closed, but traffic slowed as passing motorists viewed the scene. Police said several vehicles apparently struck the body in the darkness and did not stop. As of last night, investigators had been able to reach one witness who called police with information and were asking other motorists who had driven on the stretch of highway between 4:30 a.m. and 5 a.m. to call them. "I'm sure that there are other people out there who didn't realize that they witnessed something," Newell said. "It was dark, and they probably thought they hit a bump, pot hole or a deer." Anyone with information is asked to call the state police Waterloo barracks at 410-799-2101. The area has been the scene of an unusual number of serious accidents in recent days. A crash at the Route 175 exit ramp left two teens dead and sent a third to a hospital Friday. Three more people were flown to Maryland Shock Trauma Center yesterday after an accident at the intersection of Routes 175 and 108 around 5:30 a.m. The final northbound lanes on I-95 did not open until 1 p.m., when police were confident they had recovered all the remains. Such lengthy shutdowns are rare for investigative purposes, said Dave Buck of the State Highway Administration. The last time I-95 shut down for such a long time was when a gasoline tanker exploded in Prince George's County the day before Thanksgiving last year, ripping apart the asphalt and forcing work crews to repave the road. Bob Lande, who lives in Columbia, said his 40-minute commute to Baltimore took more than two hours yesterday. Lande, who works at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health/Center for Communication Programs, began his trip by getting onto eastbound Route 32 from Cedar Lane. "It [Route 32] was already backed up," Lande said. He said traffic was "creeping along" as he proceeded onto northbound I-95. However, all lanes were shut down at Route 175. Once on Route 175 eastbound, Lande tried to get onto northbound U.S. 1, but that also was blocked. Lande stayed eastbound on Route 175 and went north on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway. As somebody who usually takes I-95 North every day to work, the cars not stopping, I hate to say, don't surprise me very much. (No, I wasn't one of them...I took side roads to work that day, thank you very much) But it is a pretty bad commentary on society when so many of them don't stop. On edit, to add a hyperlink and the graphic.

Those were pretty noble intentions. It's not up to me to determine who will receive retribution and who won't. God is merciful, and if one calls on His name even at the hour of death, He will forgive. So my prayer is not for divine retribution, it's for authentic repentence on the part of the leadership, past and present. Until such time as they do so, though, not just for their abuses, but also for their heresy, then TWI remains a dangerous outfit with which to be associated.

Catcup, A formal, engraved letter of apology to each and every person who was ever in TWI admitting all their past sins and abuses would be more-or-less meaningless. The basic, fundamental theology embraced by TWI is flawed. It is auto-idolatrous. (worship of self) -- they are no better, and in many cases, far worse than such Word-Faith preachers as Benny Hinn, Robert Tipton, and Jim Bakker. Until such time as they are able to fully renounce their flawed theological roots, fully re-examine each and every doctrine they have taught, and re-educate their entire leadership from the home fellowship level to the top of the pyramid on correct doctrine, they will be wrong, and they will be dangerous. You said recently that you have been re-examining all your beliefs...well, they need to do exactly the same thing. Until such time as that happens (no, I'm not holding my breath), it doesn't matter what they say.

Two other points: 1) Your argument presupposes that there were more than two in order for it to make any kind of sense, whatsoever 2) If a numeric was the only concern. 2 (duo heteros kakourgos) + 1 (Iesus) = 3. That is more than two. So if your argument is correct, this is the word that should be used, regardless. Don't forget Isa 53:12 "Therefore I will give him his portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoils with the mighty, Because he surrendered himself to death and was counted among the wicked; And he shall take away the sins of many, and win pardon for their offenses." These two arguments, coupled with the thrid just mentioned, 3) kakourgos and lestes are different parts of speech: kakourgos is an adjective and lestes is a noun. A comparison between the two is like comparing red and apple. Nonsensical Sort of nullify any argument in regard to 'four crucified.'

WTH, Thank you for your response. First of all, the reference should be Luke 23:32, not 22:32 as you stated. If you would have read an earlier post that I made on the subject, and/or if you'd check any reputable Greek lexicon (including many fine lexicons online), you'd note that the word rendered malefactors is, in fact, an adjective...not a noun (as it is used in the KJV). In fact, all three of the words two (duo) other (heteros) malefactors (kakourgos) are all three adjectives...(all are in the nominative case, plural number, masculine gender). So, as I said in my original post on this particular subject (a couple of pages ago), to say that malefactors are different than robbers (lestes -- a noun), is ridiculous. An adjective describes an object. A noun is an object. It's like comparing 'apples' to 'red' -- it makes no sense. When you understand that, the bit about heteros and allos become simply a smoke-screen.

I think that sums it up as well as anything said so far!

I know my grandparents used to finish theirs with a zinc-like coating (IIRC they was applied hot...sort of like hot asphalt) claiming it kept it cooler during the summer. I don't remember how long that they said it lasted, but I think it was a long, long time. I remember spending many nights sleeping under that roof. Rain was interesting...hail was deafening...

Actually, WW, I was more curious about your responses to Mike than to WTH. But thanks never the less. The bread and circuses are sort of humorous from a raw-meat point of view.